Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive333

I am not trying to "drown this in walls of" anything. You repeatedly accuse me of violating

That's a content dispute. Your edit-warring was not a content dispute, it was just edit-warring, after being warned, on a BLP. I am not going to argue round in circles with you on this. MPS1992 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, I never received any warning, from you, nor anyone else, concerning edit warring until all of the edits being discussed had occurred. Your warning came in the form of what I perceived as a rather obnoxious comment posted on my talk page at 23:44 UTC. I assume you can compare that to the timestamps shown above. And I'm not "arguing round in circles". I'm asking you to justify accusations you have repeatedly made against me here, accusations that so far remain unjustified. General Ization ^Talk 01:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the warning was before the last of your reversions -- the revert where you boasted your expertise in the BLP policy. Do you wish to suggest that you were unaware of the policy on edit-warring before that warning landed on your talk page? MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Look again. And I have already addressed the edit-warring issue as well as I am able, and I believe as well as I need do. Since this is

WP:BLPN, and you seem to be unable or unwilling to justify your accusations concerning the latter policy, we should probably leave it at that. General Ization ^Talk

01:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You could easily address the edit-warring issue (from my perspective, anyway) by self-reverting your fourth revert, unless some mean person has already made that impossible. That was my first thought as to how you could have avoided this situation, and I have suggested it several times. But you refuse to do so, which suggests that you will continue to edit war until you achieve your preferred version. Wikipedia has policies to deal with people who make it clear that they will continue to edit war until they achieve and maintain their preferred version. MPS1992 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Does it suggest that? I think I'll leave that for our colleagues to decide. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking simply for myself, General Ization, your conduct both on the article and here suggests to me that you think edit warring is acceptable when you are "right." Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no such delusion, and you will find evidence in my recent editing history giving the same counsel to others. I think my intent, and the lack of any intent to edit war, is abundantly clear, and will be clear to my colleagues here after any reasonable review of the edits and my discussion of them above. It has nothing to do with "rightness". It has to do with two separate incidents which MPS1992 would like to combine into one, and with what I perceive as some peculiar fixation on their part about the content I restored during the second event, which they see as related to BLP in some way which they refuse to explain. General Ization ^Talk 01:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The content is not the issue. Your edit-warring is the issue. The constant NOTTHEM walls of text only serve to highlight concerns about the problem, not to hide them. MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'm just completely out of time to deal with this. I actually had intended to do some actual editing tonight. I have reverted to your preferred version, MPS1992, despite the fact that the section now makes no sense, and that what content remains at the beginning of the section is now unsourced. Despite my self-revert, I'd ask that the facts above be reviewed. General Ization ^Talk 02:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Given that the edit-warring editor has now self-reverted their 4th revert, I am content for this to be closed. I am not closing it myself due to their request (above) for the discussion -- such as it is -- to be reviewed. MPS1992 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action due to self-revert. If there are questions about the quality of sourcing consider posting at
  WP:RSN. Fortunately, it looks like nobody is still advocating the use of Facebook as a source. It appears that this actress gets lots of press coverage so you can still write a proper article without needing to quote from social media. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed – though I should note that the source I applied to the contested edit was not a Facebook post. General Ization ^Talk 14:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Page: Live in Hollywood (RBD video album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bryan McLaude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff <- this one, instead of reverting, they edited it back to what it was, most likely to evade a 3 revert rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:
[My comments somehow disappeared, so I had to retype.] - I have had a previous dispute with this user who in the past has reverted my edits and successfully resolved it on their talk page, however this time they have reverted several edits I made on a couple different pages, all having to do with infobox parameters. He is removing my edits or reverting. I would understand if I was in the wrong about the parameters, but that's what they are there for. Specifically referring to the "studio" and "venue" infobox parameter. They prefer to group it under "Recorded", which is for the date. The 2nd diff link, they wrote "Minor edit ;)" in their edit summary.. I believe they instead of reverting, they are editing it back to evade a 3RR.

• Result: No violation. I suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Page: List of Microsoft Windows versions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monkster05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 19 December 2016/00:01, 21 December 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:59, 18 December 2016 - more detail on 95, and included windows alphabetas
2. 17:47, 18 December 2016 - windows alphabetas
3. 18:01, 18 December 2016
4. 23:05, 20 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Spam and Good Faith.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already undone edit.

Comments:
This user has been making spam about "Windows Alphabetas", which doesn't exist, alongsides additional infomation on Windows 95 about it being the first edition with the "task bar" in a good faith way. I think it's time to block him! If you think so, reply underneath. Thanks. Aaron's The Best (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WHY IS NO ONE REPLYING TO ME? Aaron's The Best (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protected. There is no need to shout. Perhaps nobody replied because there was no attempt on either the users or the articles talk page to address the issue. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Page

Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

MHP Huck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "In an attempt to pust the article towards NPOV, I am adding a reference regarding the political group which has made the term notable. The sources are from the LA Times and the Guardian."
2. 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "Adding in a section related to the alt-right association of the term. These sources are clear that the term is associated with the alt-right. The sources are credible and the association critical to understanding the term."
3. 19:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755769492 by
   WP:IDONTLIKEIT
   doesn't mean you can delete it"
4. 04:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755619980 by Arkon (talk) there was no need for consensus, this fact is well publicized, and in multiple sources on this page."
5. 02:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755601709 by DynaGirl (talk) I disagree, one critical aspect of the term is who is using it. Period."
6. 02:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC) "Moved a mention of the connection to the alt-right in the lede, given their connection with the term."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Generation Snowflake#Alt Right
2. Talk:Generation Snowflake#Alt right 2.0

Comments:

1. Behavior indicates that editor intends to continue reverting repeatedly.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Generation Snowflake
3. WP:Gaming the system: diff

Comment - The amount of edit warring occurring on the GS article over the last week(s) is getting ridiculous. Temporary full protection is inches from being necessary. In the meantime, why not file an RfC?

I am not sure where you stand but I would sure love it if we had some different voices over there. I felt like I added a well sourced comment to help move the article towards NPOV but instead I get tag teamed by two editors because the have

WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't know how to avoid this tag teaming. MHP Huck (talk

) 03:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There were at least 4 editors reverting your POV last I looked. Accusing us all of conspiring to

Keri (talk

) 03:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

False. And please WP:No angry mastodons. MHP Huck (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - 3RR has not been violated. Filer also claims to see inside the head of the person being reported. Filer appears to be using 3RR as a weapon. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - 3RR is the bright line, but MHP Huck has exceeded this anyway: the policy applies to any content, not just the same content. Simple perusal of article history demonstrates this. 2nd comment: MaxBrowne has previously been blocked for edit warring at article following report here made by me, so some sour grapes to be expected.

• Can an administrator please at least warn MHP Huck to stop ignoring talk page consensus and BRD. He has added the contested content again.[58], even after this report was filed. This has been reverted by at least 3 different editors at this point (myself, Keri, and Arkon) and it appears at least 3 different editors have disagreed with this on the talk page (including myself, EddieHugh and even MaxBrowne didn't seem to support this sentence in the lead), but MHP Huck apparently doesn't care and just keeps reinserting this into the lead anyway, despite no current support and much objection. This is getting to be very disruptive. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't care? I care so much about Wikipedia. I donate every month and will continue to do so. I love wikipedia and think it is one of the most clever things we've ever come up with. But, its quality depends on the editors and I have added a number of sources to the article which are high quality. You and Keri keep removing them because you have a POV. The article with my sources and comments is more NPOV. I would love an admin to come look - I just want someone who is fair. (PS, I believe you're over the reversion limit too but I am not going to report you.) MHP Huck (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to report me, if you want. I haven't violated 3rr. Anyway, do Arkon and EddieHugh have a POV too? Face it MHP Huck, currently you have no support for this and there is significant objection, yet you just keep on adding this to the lead anyway. Also, no one is removing the sources. Multiple editors have been removing a sentence from the lead which is not supported by those sources as it appears to be synthesis, but the sources have remained in body of the article during all reversions. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with those users. I disagree with your assertions that they picked sides. Arkon presumably made a change based on his assessment of consensus. MHP Huck (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said they picked sides. I said they reverted you / disagreed with you on talk page regarding adding this to the lead. You have no support for this and much objection, but you just keep adding this to the lead anyway. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:MHP Huck and User:DynaGirl are both warned that they are getting close to a block for edit warring on this article. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a talk page consensus for their change. If people are capable of creating RfCs they should also be patient enough to wait for an agreement to be found instead of forcing their version into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston::, could you please specify which edits of mine were problematic on that page, so I can avoid any such mistake in the future? I believed all of my reverts were in accordance with talk page consensus and under 3RR. What would you advise i do differently next time? The page has been very disruptive and frustrating, and I would appreciate any assistance. I'm not clear which edits should I not have made. --DynaGirl (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The page has currently been locked down and I can understand why considering the longterm disruption, but I'm concerned what's happened here has inadvertently rewarded MHP Huck's edit warring and his disregard for BRD. As EdJohnston commented on my talk page, MHP Huck actually violated 3RR. I was warned to stop as to not violate it: [59] and I stopped. It seems to only encourage edit warring if getting your edit warred version locked down in place for days is the end result. MHP Huck's version of the lead has been reverted by multiple editors including; myself, Keri and Akron. No one restored it expect MHP Huck. It has also been opposed on talk page by myself and EddieHugh. No one supported it's inclusion in the article except MHP Huck. Is there any way the page could be locked down at a pre-edit war version as that would seem more reasonable? --DynaGirl (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, it doesn't matter which version it is locked at: it is locked purely to prevent disruption and is not considered the "accepted" version: only discussion/RfC will determine what that should be.

Keri (talk

) 11:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I created an RfC for this disputed content: [[60]]. For anyone interested in commenting, It is one of multiple RfC's currently active on the page. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Page

Race condition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Liao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "removed external links, keep the text. Unbelievable. If external links are banned. They should not be allowed in the first place in tUndid revision 755913881 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
2. 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755913661 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
3. 22:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Please respect others work. Undid revision 755912560 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
4. 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Tools for Detecting race conditions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "/* December 2016 */ 3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding spam links on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding spam links on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

Editor doesn't seem to want to talk. Typical of school projects where the editor is saying: "I want to get my work done and I don't care for working cooperatively, discussing the edits or achieving consensus". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Insanity. Walter Görlitz removed my entire section using the excuse of a few external links. He is a typical cyber bully showing no respect to others' contributions. The proper way is to just remove the external links. The accusations of me on spamming and doing school projects are laughable. First of all, I have no intention to promote anything or spam wikipedia. 2nd, I am way past schools and not doing any school project. Walter Görlitz's behavior is a typical cyber bullying showing no respect to others' contributions and baselessly accusing others' intentions. It is also a reflect of an old Chinese saying: the evils accuse others of wrong doing first.

--Liao 22:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to talk? I came to your talk page, twice. I added a notice there asking you to open a discussion at the article, and I'm the one who doesn't want to talk? Stop twisting facts. Inline external links, which in this case amounts to

WP:TERTIARY

, should have be found to discuss these tools. 22:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And now the editor continues to expand the article with primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. During the period of protection you can ask for an admin to make any change that has consensus using the {{

Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but you've just sent a message to the new editor that edit warring is acceptable and will ultimately leave the article in a state that you want. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Page: Deborah Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aqswdefrgthyjukilopjmhngbfvdcsxazaqdyujvsxxv‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

• Comment — Thought I would mention I have opened a sock-puppet investigation against this user. You can see it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guyguyguyguyguyguyguyguy
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Page

Liam Neeson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Youalrightbruv2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Well, after reading 'CONSENSUS', I have offered an alternative change. My concern is that not everybody knows where are small region such as NI is. By using a more recognisable location in the intro, followed by the specifics, it is simpler."
2. 09:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Unless one would prefer to use 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That is the name of the state. A bit big for an introduction, too.."
3. 09:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Please try and explain where it is wrong."
4. 09:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "As factually correct as the other version, 'Northern' still appears everywhere else, link for 'Ireland' displays information for whole Ireland, therefore more information added, all with good intentions."
5. 09:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Explained removal several times"
6. 09:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Article was improved and provides more information via the link and is less geographically confusing for the reader"
7. 09:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Like said but for, and, the link for 'Ireland' brings up details of Northern and Southern, more all round."
8. 09:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "The original edit posted from this account is as correct and the specific location is obviously shown. It enhances the readers' experience"
9. 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "Less confusing while still technically correct. Evidence of where he is specifically from still remains."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See user's talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Based on their edit summaries, they seem well aware of what they are doing and have suggested that they have reviewed the talk page 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Materialscientist (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Page

Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

MaxBrowne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:00, 21 December 2016‎ (UTC) "Section describes how the term is used not the "characteristics" of every person aged 16-25"
2. 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755935763 by
   WP:BOMBARD
   "
3. 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "poor source by non-notable writer, clearly derived from Fox et al"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Not given - user has instructed me not to use his talk page. See for eg [68] and [69]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Very poor GQ fluff piece cited in Generation Snowflake

Comments:

User has received previous warnings and block for edit warring at this article. Editing history at this article demonstrates that - post block - he is aware of edit warring policy but now self-reverts or allows time to elapse in order to game the system. Current edit warring relates to a RS - GQ Magazine. User has elevated this to RS Noticeboard where

• Comment Keri is once again acting with clear POV and trying to silence those who disagree with him. Obviously, the above user has simply not violated the rules and this report is completely ridiculous. MHP Huck (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Should be snow closed and filer warned against misuse of AN3. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Now any edit at all to the article is supposedly a "revert". Filer is clearly abusing process. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You were made aware of this the last time you had to be blocked.

  Keri (talk

  ) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation but deleting the GQ reference from the article seems disruptive because MaxBrowne failed to get support for deleting this reference at RSN [70] and he failed to get consensus to remove this reference on the article talk page. [71] It appears he also quietly removed this reference from the section on trigger warnings at some point, I'm not sure when. MaxBrowne complained at RSN that the GQ source was referenced 3 times in the article, and now it's not in the article at all [72]. I don't recall when this happened and I watch the page regularly. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Having been previously blocked he is now gaming the system to circumvent the spirit of the policy while remaining within the letter of it.

Keri (talk

) 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I love that you both are commenting here too - too funny! Such clear heads, such a neutral point of view. MHP Huck (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin. Multiple editors are engaged in this dispute. --slakr^\ talk / 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the editor who maliciously reported me for "edit warring" has done almost nothing but edit war on the article over the past month. A quick glance at the history of the article will show that every single one of this user's edits to the article was a revert. On the article talk page the editor has consistently used sarcasm, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I have done my best to ignore them by not replying to them on the talk page but the attacks have not stopped. An ANI thread was opened over 2 weeks ago but so far not even one admin has responded. It's high time this user had a wake-up call regarding their behaviour and abuse of the AN3 process. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@

dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk

 / 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@

Keri (talk

) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Page: Apache Ant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also related: List of build automation software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 2016-12-15 ""Cross-platform" is a weasel word that tries to disguise the fact the writer doesn't know which OS"
• 2016-12-16 "MOS:COMPUTING says don't use this term. WP:WEASEL says don't."
• 2016-12-22 "Rv. malicious blanket revert. Also, the reverter is refusing to get the point. The discussion in the talk page of MOS:COMPUTING was rather comprehensive."
• 2016-12-22 "Again, this is a malicious blanket revert. You discussed in Talk:MOS:COMPUTING and didn't earn a consensus."

Also see

I seek an outcome here which states that Lisa, as unable to actually show the MOS as supporting her claim, stops making that claim and stops reverting on the basis of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by the involved editor, FleetCommand. This whole affair started as a dispute, one that either of the sides could be blocked if they edit warred; it is now a simple matter of disruptive editing.

I became involved when Andy Dingley came to

Talk:MOS:COMPUTING asking advice about a matter of dispute in List of build automation software article! (not Apache Ant

)! I refused to visit the dispute itself, and concerned myself with answering Andy's direct question, giving advice to Andy. But the discussion didn't yield the consensus that empowered Andy to restore his version. So, the following happened:

• Andy stopped listening and decided to
  Talk:MOS:COMPUTING
  , he started talking to Codename Lisa (which turned out to be the other side of dispute) from that point onward, repeated five times the question for which he had already received answer, and near the end of discussion, he is ignoring me entirely.
• Andy suddenly turned on me and called my snarky. All I did was helping this guy.
• Codename Lisa forfeited her contribution on "List of build automation software" article and told Andy he can revert it. You'd think that the object of edit warring is permanently eliminated. But no!
• Andy started disruptive blanket reverting on
  WP:DICK
  : It was possible to avoid this by pressing the Edit button, typing 16 characters and possibly avoiding an edit war altogether. But Andy didn't take this course of action. IMHO, Andy did this to bait Codename Lisa into reverting him and thereby starting an edit war. In other words, he disrupted Wikipedia to get another editor to revert his disruption.

To summarize, Andy

WP:DICK action. In addition, he never had any policy or consensus support for his very first revert to begin with. Checking Andy Dingley's block log

reveals that he is a repeat offender. I believe he must receive a longer block this time.

Cheers. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a simple way to resolve this: just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says, "cross-platform is a weasel phrase and must not be used".

You have not done so: you can't, because it isn't in there. Yet Lisa has claimed this repeatedly in order to remove it against my clearly stated objections. I've given reasons why it's applicable to Ant, but no-one has responded to that, just cited the same falsehood. Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

I asked at the MOS for any other editor to quote it instead, in case I'd just missed it. You didn't do that, you turned to snark and "Don't come here weeping". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• "just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says [~snip~]" I have done so already: [73] [74]

"Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true." Right back at you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by the accused,
  WP:3RR
  .